Good News! Shoot 'Em Up Video Games Don't Make Us All Killers!
from the in-case-you-didn't-notice dept
While people are busy debating whether or not driving video games turn people into bad drivers, I'm sure everyone will be happy to know that violent video games don't turn children into killers. Jack Thompson must be so disappointed. This sounds like a more academic version of the point that a few people made two years ago, noting that as violent video games have become more popular, youth violence has actually decreased. This particular study looked at youth homicides and found that in the past ten years, as violent video games grew more popular, the rate has decreased 77%. The person who did the research notes that video games probably are close to meaningless compared to "community and family violence, suburban alienation and less parental involvement." Of course, that doesn't make for nearly as interesting headlines as being able to blame random school shootings on video games, rather than angry messed up kids.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FIRST POST!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as far as video games making people bad drivers, ask the dad of a 7 year old kid who pulled his van over 3 lanes of traffic on a freeway when he had heart attack if it makes them a bad driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
Tech Rage at its finest!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your second point seems to lack in the Logic Department as well; how can you take an isolated incident and use that as your argument that video games do not make people bad drivers. I suppose that is why there are researchers doing actual statistical analysis whereas you are just voicing whatever comes to your mind first.
That said, I complete agree with the research above, violent games don't make people kill, driving games don't make people drive badly.... but Chris, your statements are so, so flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to advocate usless studies that do nothing more than prove the obvious, but maybe if more of this type of study is done, then stupid lawmakers might wake up and stop pushing for banning of violent video games.
Dang that was a long sentance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Duh
Of course, but any psychologist worth $100k will tell you the opposite - its more sensationalist and gets spots on the nightly news when they tell a parent its because of the latest thing to blame (games now, rock music back in the 60's, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEVENTH POST! WOO HOO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Billy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Billy
No, I don't believe playing video games makes you a killer. No, I don't think violent media has more of an impact than the parents. However, it's silly to say there's no effect at all on you, just because you're not especially outwardly violent yourself. Who knows what subconscious effects the media has had on people? I don't claim to know either, but you're being quite hasty in saying none.
So you know, I'm a gamer myself. I used to be a huge one as a kid, but not so much anymore. The only game I've got in the past two years is Resident Evil 4 this Christmas (amazing by the way). Am I more violent for it? No. Am I still concerned that military has wanted to use games to desensitize troops, and that the USMC authorized the use of "Doom" for training? Yes. I firmly believe these games should be allowed to be created, played, and enjoyed; I just want to be thoughtful, cautious, and questioning about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Billy
For my own opinion, it's a nonsense that video games encourage real world civillian violence any more than watching cartoon violence does. However, I do think video games and violent films are instrumental on a much more subtle psychological level because they are propaganda devices.
Let's take a step back and consider the audacious double standards at large in our countries. We are supposedly at war. Yes, it's a fake war, a war of aggression against defenceless tribesmen armed with primitive and improvised weapons, but a "war" it is nonetheless. In all wars domestic criminal violence decreases both during and immediately after the conflict, essentially because the aggressive members of society are thinned out, and those that do return are incapacitated and sickened by conflict.
We have just exported our violence. Does the study include the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afgans, British and American kids killed in recent years? And for those who would like to dismiss that as irrelevant, think again, there is a very strong link between film/video game violence and war because our army uses them not only to train soldiers but to recruit young people.
Bloody films and games may not directly influence a youngster to pick up a weapon and murder their classmates, but they surely have an influence on whether a kid chooses to sign up to kill and die in a foreign land. They are a cruel and evil deception in that regard. By the time an 18 year old finds out that real bullets hurt when they blow your arm off, there are no wallhacks, no end of round highscore, and no respawn, it's too late. Were this not the case our governments and military would not invest so heavily in them.
Nothing new here of course, propaganda films depicting war as glorious and the enemy as weak and easily killed were around in 1942.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stress relief
At least I know I am not likely to start running around a bulding shooting people just because I have played SoF II. Now I just need a study to prove that just because I read the BOFH I will not turn into a blackmailer, murder, petty thief, grand thief, fraudster, gambler...
Maybe the more sedentary lifestyle of young gamers means that they are not out on the streets getting involved in gangs, so reducing the level of violent crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No correlation
The number of teachers in my community went up by 30% in the last decade. The amount of whiskey sold in my community also went up by 30%.
Those two facts stated this way makes it look like the rising number of teachers is causing the rise in whiskey consumption.
However, the reason for the rise in both of the statistics is the overall increase in population of the community, showing that just because two things appear to be correlated doesn't make it so. Look at the bigger picture to get cause-effect, not small statistics that give only half the story.
I am NOT saying that violent games cause violent behavior, I just think the issue is much deeper than the summary given here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No correlation
All of the studies showing a link from vg's to violence do exactly that. Some twisted little monkey shoots up a mall, and the first thing they do is look for what video games he plays.
They always seem to miss the fact that game sales have increased exponentially, while youth violence has decreased. Either way, if the anti-game studies were correct, the violence should be increasing dramastically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No correlation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No correlation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True Grit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True Grit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Yeah let's not forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No correlation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow Great News
I wonder what dorpus would say....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At #6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DUH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, lol.
But blaming murdurous acts on virtual entertainment is just as bad as saying that beliefs other than your own are evil. For those of you who are of the "On man" A.K.A. "God" faith judge people then you are going against your own teachings. I used to be a Christian and in the Bible it states that judging is bad.
Basicly, religion is on of the main causes of real violence, not something you see on a damned screen.
By claiming that video games are the cause shows that you're merely a coward who can't find but your own feeble attempts at making an ACTUAL point. And in the end, those feeble attempts are all that you have left in life.
-Raina the Sweet Shadow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL Inconvenient Truth
It's come to the point where parents can hand their kid something to teach them (for example: Leapster) and they can be said to have raised their child. Teaching≠Raising, that's a fact. You want a kid to turn out right, spend time with them, watch movies with them, heck resort to drastic measures and read 'em a fricken book!
Allow me to (attempt to) quote Triple X, on the sobject of video games: It's the only education we got. It's not exaduration (even if I can't spell), we can get knowledge from school, but with parents taking a 'step back and watch 'em go' approach more and more, where are we supposed to get our morals from? Video games are convenient, and even if they're not the best, they're what's there. People seem to miss that, even with all these studies they're doing.
Ya... Well, that's said, I'ma go be all broody in a corner now... You have no idea how much further I could take this rant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugly/Stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about SSBM?
And it would be helpful if they reported something that related the amount of violent video game murderers played verses the amount of violent video games a normal gamer played. Wow that was a convoluted sentence. I meant, Gamer's game time/type vs. Murderer's game time/type.
We'll see how that turns out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Die
YOU BASTARDERS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantasy and Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Films don't teach you about war
You, sir, are a clueless moron. I'd LOVE to see you say that to one of the men in my battalion and see what happens. I'd imagine you'd have no face left after we took out our grief on it.
"Defenceless" you aren't even an American. You're, what, a Brit? Who just pulled out all your troops?
Why the hell are there always these window-licking retards around, popping out of nowhere to give their long-winded idiotic opinions on things they don't know about anyway?
It's always nice to hear what people have to say about war when they know next to nothing about it's true nature.
As for the subject at hand, I played a lot of cowboys and injuns when I was a kid and I fail to see the difference between that, and a video game. Sigmund Freud once said (paraphrased) that to think a child was not intensely serious about his dream-world during play would be an incredibly large mistake.
The play hasn't changed, only the dream-world. Fact of the matter is, the dream-world has become a tool now that teaches motor skills and problem solving, which is a good thing. The bad thing being that the teenage parents who are still in friggin' high school who depend on the PS2 and grandma to teach and rear their idiot children. It's almost enough to disprove Darwin's most famous theory.
This is not hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Films don't teach you about war
The difference is physical activity. Running around is great for kids as it builds stamina and fitness, while video games are physically passive. The former acts as a release for adrenaline and producer of endorphine peptides which reduce stress and promote a healthy cardio-vascular system, while the latter leads to obesity, frustration and in excess serious ill health.
It is true that many video games promote increased spacial awareness, navigational capabilities and sharpen reaction times. Many studies have shown this very strongly. But are you suggesting that real physical activity somehow does not lead to improved motor skills and problem solving? If so you need to revise that idea. Real play activities give all of the benefits of a simulated experience plus many others.
I think you picked the wrong person to randomly mouth off at
and make assumptions about. My family are some of those who pick up the pieces. I may not be qualified to pronounce on the causes of war, and I suggest neither are you, but I am qualified to talk about the effects.
You might care to consider them.
Post traumatic stress disorders.
Sleep disturbance and nightmares.
Alcoholism and drug abuse.
Depressed self esteem.
Social stigma and alienation.
Toxic effects of battlefied agents (eg. Gulf war syndrome).
Damage to intimate relationships.
Increased risk of suicide.
Homelessness and financial degeneracy.
Domestic violence toward spouse and children.
Panic attacks.
Hypervigillance and profound physical insecurity.
Respiratory problems.
Early appearance of hearing difficulties.
We could go on... but I'm sure you get the picture. And those are just the ones who didn't actually kill anyone.
The hardest part of "supporting the troops" is extending compassion and understanding for those that come home after the battle, not jingoistic flag waving and tough talk while they're out there dying.
I spent 2 Christmas weeks working the homeless shelters. 80% of those we bring in are males 20-35 and about 30% of those I've personally spoken to are ex servicemen. Refugees, heroin addicts and middle class alcoholics all fare better than the ex soldiers. Nothing fucks you up more. The costs to society are enormous and conveniently ignored by those cowards who shout the loudest for war.
"I'd LOVE to see you say that to one of the men in my battalion and see what happens. I'd imagine you'd have no face left after we took out our grief on it."
You're not one of the men in your battalion then? ;)
Argument against violence by appeal to violence. Not very good. I never met a single person who saw active combat since WW2 that defends it, the reasons for it, and that includes chaps from conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Malasia, East Timor, Falklands, Bosnia and Iraq.
Or are you seriously here to promote violence and killing? If so you just lost my respect dude.
That aside, your remarks about Freud and the decline of physical vigour in the Darwinian sense are spot on the money.
And to address your title. Films don't teach you anything about war. That's my point. Propaganda is deception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After playing Super Mario Bros. 2 for two weeks straight, do you think a kid will go out and pull up a field of real turnips?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure he won't!
We have just exported our violence.
And I daresay - violence has been around far longer than this country and in the vast majority of cases - far worse than in this country.
The US didn't invent the 'sucicide bomer', and 300 years ago - violence was far more commonplace in the lives of people than it is today. In Many countries it's still quite legal to kill your wife, daugther's - if they 'shame' the family. I'd think a son watching his dad kill a family member because it brought 'shame' to them, would be a bit more likely to effect one's mind than say - Halo or Doom.
Just consider - we don't have public hangings, use of devices like the Iron Maiden, Rack, etc for public torture aren't used - at least openly in most Countries today. There are some exceptions, of course...
Bloody films and games may not directly influence a youngster to pick up a weapon and murder their classmates, but they surely have an influence on whether a kid chooses to sign up to kill and die in a foreign land. They are a cruel and evil deception in that regard.
Many, many, many more people died in the US Civil War, World War One, and World War 2 than in Iraq, period. World War two was the only one where TV really existed for the masses, and was far more tame. More people died during most battles in these wars than have in Iraq, in some cases more than the combined totals of this war, US and Iraqi.
As a matter of fact, if you check your facts, you'll find more US servicemen died during the Clinton administation's years than have in Iraq to date, in any event.
http://www.nysun.com/article/48926
The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?
And Abortion kills far more children per year than video games and TV could ever dream of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe anybody's ever claimed the US did Overcast. For what it's worth the earliest reference to suicide bombing I can recall comes from, of all places, here in my country, England.
I'd like to stay on-topic in regard to video game violence but you raise a point that prompts me to share a bit of obscure knowledge with you, lest we forget our history and become guilty of hypocrisy.
When things were looking desperate circa 1943, Churchill took a stance which in todays terms would be (incorrectly) labelled "terrorism". The Home Guard (innocently depicted in comedy Dad's Army) were the exact equivilent of todays "insurgents". Like many resistance armies the feeling was that the Germans would take England over the bodies of every last man woman and child in the country. The motto was "You can always take one with you". Local defence units were engaged in preparing improvised explosives made from farm and household chemicals. The idea was that you would walk up to a group of two or more German soldiers and blow yourself up along (hopefully) with them too.
The second world war is the most romanticised and seldom portrayed in the brutal terms of its reality so it's become a piece of burried history that the English were prepared to engage in guerilla warefare to the last man in the event of an invasion. The United States has never faced an imminent land invasion and occupation, but I am absolutely sure that if it had Americans would put up exactly this kind of resistance too.
"What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime.."
That's fascinating, and for me it raises an objection to the use of the term "peacetime". Wars are no longer started and ended in neat "declarations" with the nicities of initiation and surrender, they blur into protracted campaigns without conclusion. The unpleasant truth is that the USA has been behind more of these low key wars than any other nation in history and has started scores of them since 1945. Effectively, the USA has never been at peace. The USA made no declaration of war against Iraq and so that war can never be "over".
"World War two was the only one where TV really existed for the masses"
Did you mean to say something else? Television wasn't invented before or during the second world war. In fact it greatly owes its existence to radar technology which appeared during that conflict and represents the first use of the cathode ray tube as a display device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Olympic Games & Hitlers speech happened to be the first thing broadcast that actually left the earth and traveled into space (The movie Contact got that part right)
It was a lot of politickings and changing the frequency's that killed the original sets and gave RCA free reign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some one to blame
it dosent mater what it is
>violence
>drugs
>alchocol
>sex
it dosent mater
there is ALWAYS something that is to blame other than the actual cause because the actual cause would cause too many problems and complaints and arguments
so stop complaining and work to stop stupid people from taking ofer the world!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More people have been killed in the name of "God(s)" then anything else, and yet we don't see 'Soccer Moms' picketing Catholic Church, or Muslim Mosques for their histories of radical nut job violence. The problem is everyone wants to protect the children, but lets face it that just isn't going to happen. If we can't protect the President from getting 100% from being assassinated or shot (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, Reagan, etc.). What makes people think we are going to protect kids better then the guy with the best protection money can by? And all those guys were killed/shot before violent videos games were even made (unless someone wants to blame frogger for Reagan's shooting).
You cannot protect your children you can do your best, but mostly parents have to be there to help with the aftermath. You support and love your kids and help them through the rough times. Your kids are going to suffer, you did, your parents did, suffering isn't bad if it helps you develop into someone that doesn't go out and cause suffering because you remember how it felt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THe French Resisitance met many of the criteria of terrorisim used by the Bush administration, except for the fact that they were not against the US.
IRT 43 (AC): Tthre was definitely TV in the London area before the war, since the first TV experiments were conducted at Alexandra Palace, and the antenna used for BBC broadcasts was used during the Battle of the Beams (see Prof. R. V. Jones, Most Secret War).
IRT 40 (misanthropic Humanist):
>>"I'd LOVE to see you say that to one of the men in
>>my battalion and see what happens. I'd imagine you'd
>> have no face left after we took out our grief on it."
>You're not one of the men in your battalion then? ;)
I would guess that either he is actually she or, more likely, "he" is an officer, so that the "men" are the other ranks and "we" is the battalion
IRT 38:
>"Defenceless" you aren't even an American. You're,
> what, a Brit? Who just pulled out all your troops?
I thought that you Yanks could use the word defenceless and spell it correctly. The comment about being defenceless is probably from a european or an Aussie, who have not lost any lives yet. Teh Brish reassigned the troops since they did not need them in thier sector anymore. Kindly do not forget that the UK is about 1/4 the size of the USA, and that the British army is also committed to a large number of other tasks, such as peacekeeping throughout the Near East, Afghanistan, and Africa, and meeting NATO obligations. THen there's NI police work, guard dutiies for US bases and other odds and ends. Also, the British army is a very small part of the Services, compared with other countries.
OTOH, He is wrong that they are defenceless, especially since US troops did not guard the Iraqi Army's arsenals in thier sector after the invasion, and the IRanians are supposedly supplying the insurgency.
IRT 37 (misanthropic humanist):
Thier weapons are not exactly basic improvised weapons, except for the ANFO bombs. just because they use AKs does not make them less deadly than if they were carying NATO weapons. While the AK (both 47 and 74) is primitve, they are reliable and cheap, making them an ideal weapon for an insurgency, and as they are so common, the correct rounds are readily availiable. A simple gun can be a good thing, in fact the British Army used a bolt-action rifles as standard until long after the War, because the best infantrymen could fire faster with them than the Americans could withthier automatics, and for reliability.
An ANFO (basic kerosine/NH4NO3 explosive) bomb is simple, easy to make from readily avaliable materials, and is perfectly good for the purpose.
IRT 34: I would actually assume they use Doom III :-)
THe game would be good for developing tactical nous, and teach the flaws of being predicatble. THis is beat exemplified by clans which find an effective tactic which is used every time a certain situation occurs. it does not take long for thier enemies to develop an understanding of the tactics, and it is not hard ot learn to beat them. When leaders, realise that, they will be less predictable.
Gaming also teaches the advantage of cover and basic evaluation of terrain for lines of fire and approach/retreat routes, without anyone dying while you learn.
IRT 21 (physics guy): this appears to be the case
Well done for reading this far. as a reward you can have a flame at me for being too clever for your own good (and I do know what I just wrote).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whew, back to the topic..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A single paragrah isnt enough to aruge anything espically violent videogames
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how the media may be hazardous to your health
referring to the comment made by "marquis" if your son/daughtre has played Gta or even if you have then you know that games with whores, crack,and guns to shoot inocent civilians is going to affect the mindset of anyone who plays it. marquis should be ashamed of him/herself for saying that videogames have no effect. im sorry for droning on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how the media may be hazardous to your health
referring to the comment made by "marquis" if your son/daughtre has played Gta or even if you have then you know that games with whores, crack,and guns to shoot inocent civilians is going to affect the mindset of anyone who plays it. marquis should be ashamed of him/herself for saying that videogames have no effect. im sorry for droning on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how the media may be hazardous to your health
referring to the comment made by "marquis" if your son/daughtre has played Gta or even if you have then you know that games with whores, crack,and guns to shoot inocent civilians is going to affect the mindset of anyone who plays it. marquis should be ashamed of him/herself for saying that videogames have no effect. im sorry for droning on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my opinion
forgive the rant and life story, and thanks to all of you for helping with my high school debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
63rd POST whoo-hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Famous quote from Game Informer
-Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i
[ link to this | view in chronology ]